Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-12
BETWEEN FIRES.
ax1w PHASE II COMMON wEALrTs-
ATTORNEY MecABLS CASE.
Judee Tebbs Has Views which He Dares
Maintain Be Will Have His
Orders 0beyed.
rcorro.pondence Of tho Richmond Di.patch.l

IErspTRG. VA, October 10, 1887.
In connection with the telegram sent
the DispQtch tonight in reference to
the case Of ex-Judge J. b. McCabe it
is well TO call the attention of the peO-
rle OF the State to one of Judge Bonds
decisions. which seems to strike law
y1s heIe who are conyorsant with the
facts as more illegal than Others. The
case is Cooper az. McCabe, Russell,
and Littleton, in which McCabe, attor-
nov for the Commonwealth Russell,
sheriff; and Littleton, clerk of the
County Court, are enjcined from pro
cecding b. enforce the laws Of the state
IN the cases Of the Commonwealth u.s..
Hirst d Smith, Bolyn, and others.
This case seems 10 stand on even
stronger ground for the Commonwealth
and lis officers than the others At
August term OF Loudoun County Court
Hirst IL Smith, Bolyn, and others were
indicted for carrying on business with
cut license on the I'd Of May, 1897
Cooper asserting that he had sold cou-
poLs to said parties, and indemnified
them, and that they had rendered said
coupons in payment of license, obtains
injunction and restraining order from
judge Bond cnjoining the Common
wtalth's attorney, clerk, and sheriff
from proceeding to prosecute said IN
dictmonts.
In his answer Judge McCabe, after
| pleading to the jurisdiction Of the court,
declares that the .t0ci Of tender is de-
MED by the treasurer, and that even II
| tender he prored. as alleged, that said
tender was after date OF offences as
charged III the Indictment and yet, as
We see in the UiSpGfch, Judge Bond
not merely assumed jurisdiction to re-
strain the officers of the court from at
tending to their business in criminal
counts, but perpetuated the injunction
without inquiring into the trim of the
tender alleged in the bill.
lie not only assumes jurisdiction to
restrain criminal courts, but assumes
the fact set ont in the bill TO be trU'
.bcugh denied in the answer. Such an
act is incomprehensiblc to lawyers here,
and they insist that the report of his
decision cannot be correct.
These eases were called in the County
Court this morning and the Common
woalths attorney was ordered by Judge
r. II. Tcbbs to proceed. Judge
McCabe answered that he had received
an order from Judge Bond restraining
him from proceeding in these cases,
and while lie was Of the opinion that
said order was beyond the jurisdiction
of Judge Bonds court he did not
wish to put himself in the attitude OF
defiance 10 the order of that court and
asked further time TO consider whether
lie should obey or disregard sad re-
staIning order
Judge Tebbs in reply told him that
he did not wish to take him unawlres
or without full time to consider, but
that he intended that the officers Of his
court should obey his legal commands,
and as far os lay in his power he would
resist any and all efforts OF an Illegal
and usurpcd jurisdiction to interfere
with the due execution OF the criminal
laws Of the State that he would give
Judge McCabe until the first day of next
court to determine whose orders he
would obey, and in the mean time di-
reciod rule to be issued rcturnable
first day of next term requiring said
McCabe to show cause why he should
not be punished for refusing to per
Conn his duty and execute the lawful
orGcTs of tbs court.
and 80 Judge McCabe stands in a
very unpleasant predicaneHt in these
cases.
II lie proceeds Judge Bond viii hold
i'm in contempt. II he refuses % pro-
coed Judge Iebbs viii punish him Tor
contempt Of the State court. Whatthe
outcome Will be- We cannot tell, bat We
do feel that the gravity Of this cont st
between the State courts and Judge
ICnd- between the night OF tie State
to nave It's criminal laws duly eyacIted
and the authority Of Judge Bond, ut
lis own good will and pleasure, on the
Ill, cations of Cooper and his agents,
without the slightest inquiry as 90 the
nath of these allegations. ID interfere
and arnul the criminal LAWS o, tn
state.
This, it is thought here, Is q ques-
ton Of the very existence ami autonomy
%! the State, and Of Importance far De
you'd any mere question o; the co'.ec-
y. & ,....-.,.,,.. C,.. a.rr.-